Is it time to change the rule?

elGrande wrote:I am a bit confused as to why you don't choose to run 'round robin' as you like. Who has decided that the way you had it outlined in your initial post is the correct way. My first tournament was round robin, and I used a points system to determine the winners and it was also NOT 1v1. There are many ways to do things and to decide tiebreakers.

If I was running a 1v1 group play with 4 players..

It would be a 3 map series (means you play ALL 3 maps.. not a best of)..Each map is worth 2 points win, -1 for DQ.

So each map can be 6:0, 4:2, 6:-3, ..etc..

Each player would play the others in their group 1 time (1 match).. A maximum of 18 points can be earned.This will help lower the number of possible ties and the fact that each match is a 3 map series.. you will always have a tie breaker already decided between players. There will never be a tie among players..

However, in cases that 3 players are tied in points..

You first look at their head to head, then you look at only the matches (wins/losses) among the 3 players that are tied..

Using this system, you will hardly ever have ties that need additional matches.

You make lots of points and I will try to answer all of them. No one said the way I do it is the correct way. There are many different formats to the RR.

I chose to run the RR tournaments like this as they are fast. The 1 v 1 games can take a long time but the majority of the 120 games are finished with in under 5 days. It is intense. HighlanderAttack and SirSebstar can and have finished all games in 2 days.

Your tournament is not what I would call a round robin but a group tournament. You had 4 player games with the same 4 players in each game. Similar to these two.viewtopic.php?f=90&t=136489viewtopic.php?f=91&t=134394The Expanding Horizons uses the same format as yours as well as the points system. Less chance of a tie I agree, but there is still a chance which is why, even with this one I placed the rule of a points tie, they play another game.

Another good example of a RR would be the Berlin 1961 that is going on now with each player playing each other 5 games and points being awarded for how ever many games you beat over your opponent. This one however is played over a much longer period of time. viewtopic.php?t=134607As you can see, with 3 rounds left, the top 4 are within 30 points of each other. Again it may come down to two players being tied on points and it being decided over there 5 games. Same situation as mine with the games between players deciding the outcome. It does not matter how you do it, at some point, you have to award the win to someone.

With your one, how did you decide on the ties in the groups?

No matter what system you employ in a RR tournament, you will always have ties. With my one, more so maybe, which is why the rule was written. The players who sign up know this and accept it. My question is, can it be done fairer within the parameters of the format I have chosen to do the tournaments in?

LOL, yea. It took me a while to see where the true differences lie. I think Blitz is talking about teams only.I have to admit that if you see each game as a final’s game, then the situation of team A winning over team B who are both tied should indeed give the win to team A (In a Koontz ruled tournament only!!).

Where team B won over team C that has beaten team A another faceoff is then not required.

This I feel ONLY applies to Koontz, ruled tournaments. Koontz tournaments are intended to be short brutal affairs, with maximum rule clarity and a total dedication to the concept that each game is a tournament finals.. This keeps them short, which is a major contributor to its attractiveness.

On the other hand there is Blitzes argument. After all, there should never be a tie, the winner should always be clear. And while with Koontz it is always clear, but maybe not always perceived to be fair, and considering I don not mind the occasional faceoff. Though, lets admit it. If there is a 3 way tied, where team A beats both team B and C, but then looses the faceoff due to whatever, also does not always make sense.

I’d stick to whatever rules the TO has placed ni the tournament, but with a Koontz rule, at least you know upfront what is going to happen when. You’d better just win it outright, and if you can’t, then eliminate those of the competition that can match you.. If you fail in those respects, then maybe you should not be allowed to win the tournament.

I believe that the problem lies not so much as in the rule as it is read, but by the players not reading it before signing up.

In both cases where I have been brought to task on this, the first question has always been what happens in a tie situation?

Blitzaholic has asked for a second play off game to determine the winner. Is it fair then to then declare a winner when two teams have beaten each other once only? Do we then go for a third deciding game? And if we do that, both teams can get back to having even wins.Where do I draw the line in the sand and say enough is enough.

Koontz, If you rule were not there, I would have suggested a 3 game playoff in the case of an twoway tie.. Best of 3 would win I can see an argument for a best of 1 to keep games fast, but best of 3 is more… fair..

In a 3 or more player tie, I would play another round of games 1vs1 against each opponent.3 players 3 more games. 4 players 6 more games. Ect ect and then see who is the winner, and if there is still a tie, continue doing this until there is a winner( and drop the looser). Downside is obvious, when and where does it end.

Overall, I understand the quickness of your rule aka the Koontz rule.

In a lengthy tournament, say 30+ teamgames then I could easily imagine an extra best of 3 games in the case of a tie.. Then just an arbitrary underling game previously played would indeed be unsatisfactory, maybe..A clear objective winner is always more appreciated, I think we all can agree on that.

Right now we have the normal game deciding the outcome of the tournament when two players are tied. If we have a play off game, does the situation not arise that if the team that lost the normal game wins the play off game, how can I then award them the win as both teams have won one game each. We are back to having a dilemma of one player winning a tournament when he has not bested another player, only equalled him. So do we then go in for a third game which if the original team wins, we are back to having a wins tie but with no overall majority.Which ever way it is done, someone in the end will have to lose.

Totally agreed with your statement koontz.Therefor I suggest a best of 3. But only for tied teams, That way you will always have a game difference...on the other hand one game could do it, considering both teams are then no longer equal in total games won (since one lost)

Its like blitz said. C wins over B who wins over A who wins over C. B & A are tied, who wins. According to Koontz team B.According to the playoffs, A or B could win, but if A wins, B &A would both have lost a game ot eachother...

I prefer the Koontz method as long as it is clear upfront AND its a quick and dirty tournament. The every game is a finals game appeals to me. But for a huge tournament, to have it end like this, e.g. HA's tournament, no that would not be fitting, then a best of 3 is warrented.. and for singles maybe a best of 5??

anyways Koontz, you dont have to agree with that. Basicly your suggestion for the tiebreaker rule is a great one, simple and clear. Are you clear on the examples? Maybe you should also take the blitz example to show how it works.. A looses because B beat it even though C beats B but he is not tied with AB.. or something..

koontz1973 wrote:One round, everyone plays everyone in 1 on 1 matches; at the same time. Player with most wins, wins the tournament. If two players are tied the player that won the 1v1 match wins the tourney--if multiple players are tied and there is no clear head to head winner -all the players involved will play another round robin

I would suggest:

One round, everyone plays everyone in 1 on 1 matches; at the same time. Player with most wins, wins the tournament. If two players are tied then those players play-off -- if multiple players are tied and there is no clear head to head winner - all the players involved (in the tie) will play another round robin.

yuck..and then what? how does the faceoff look like 1 game? 3 games?What is player A beat player B, but are both tied. and if player B now beats player A, then they both have beaten eachotheer once, but still player B wins? Won is this better?

koontz1973 wrote:The problem I see with having a play off game is this...

Right now we have the normal game deciding the outcome of the tournament when two players are tied. If we have a play off game, does the situation not arise that if the team that lost the normal game wins the play off game, how can I then award them the win as both teams have won one game each. We are back to having a dilemma of one player winning a tournament when he has not bested another player, only equalled him. So do we then go in for a third game which if the original team wins, we are back to having a wins tie but with no overall majority.Which ever way it is done, someone in the end will have to lose.

Which is why you should just go ahead and do it the way you have been. As Sebstar said yesterday, your tournaments have a certain flavour. They start quickly, they are quite brutal sometimes, and they end quickly. That's your "style" or "flavour" or "schtick" ... call it what you will, but it's the way you do things. You shouldn't water down a distinctive flavour to be more like "everybody else." Look what happened to Coke when they tried to play with the formula to be more like Pepsi!

Definitely don't get wrapped up in debates about "fairness." This isn't chess, this is a game with a large luck component -- your opponent can drop a +3 bonus and get first turn (as happened to me two days ago!) dice and cards can screw you, team-mates you're counting on can suddenly develop R/L problems and miss their turns at critical moments, the list goes on and on. The only way you could make this into a game of pure skill would be to play some catastrophically large number of games so that all random forces would even out.

That is it. Debate is over now but it will continue . SirSebstar has had a go at re writing the rule - some may say better, some may not.

But from...

Monday 4th April

3 New Tournaments will be posted

Unification (Part two) Singles.

North & South Doubles.

Hong Kong Phooey Triples.

These will use the rule as stated in previous RR tournaments hosted by me. I will take on board some of the suggestions like posting a link to this thread and putting a spoiler at the bottom with further explanation.

I believe it is the fairest way and the guys who voted, voted to keep it the same. The guys who have tried to re write it, have not made any progress. The extra game at the end as suggested by Blitz and a couple of others gives another problem so neither solves it or makes it better.

Thanks to everyone who took part in this and I will keep looking in from time to time to see if anyone has made any more suggestions.

One round, everyone plays everyone in 1 on 1 matches; at the same time. Player with most wins, wins the tournament. If two players are tied then those players play-off -- if multiple players are tied and there is no clear head to head winner - all the players involved (in the tie) will play another round robin.

Huge problem with this. You suggest that if 2 players tie then a second game should be played but if more than 2 tie and one has beaten the others in normal play, then he should win outright.